Lockout/Tagout 
Overview 
Background 
Services 
Software 
Training 
Our Clients 
Lockouts Explained 
Lockout Samples 
Terms & Definitions 
F.A.Q. 
OSHA 
Request For Information 

 Products & Services 
Lockout/Tagout 
Arc Flash  
Evacuation Plans 
Preventive Maintenance 
Military Documentation 
Technical Writing 
Technical Training 
Visual Aids & Illustrations 
Software & Multimedia 
Industrial Signage 

 Other Options 
Contact Us 
EHS Insider 
HOME 





OSHA

[ Tutorial ] [ Hot Topics ] [ Case Studies ]
[ LOTO standard ] [ LOTO preamble ] [ Compliance directive ]
[ Selected case law ] [ Selected letters of interpretation ]

Selected Letters of Interpretation

OSHA Standards Interpretation and Compliance Letters

Article in Magazine Containing Incorrect Information About Lockout/Tagout Requirements.


  • Record Type: Interpretation
  • Standard Number: 1910.147
  • Subject: Article in Magazine Containing Incorrect Information About Lockout/Tagout Requirements.
  • Information Date:1991

September 4, 1991


MEMORANDUM FOR:     JAMES F. FOSTER, DIRECTOR

                   OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

THROUGH:            PATRICIA K. CLARK, DIRECTOR
                   DIRECTORATE OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

FROM:               RAYMOND E. DONNELLY, DIRECTOR
                   GENERAL INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

Subject:            Article In Magazine Containing Incorrect Information
                   About Lockout/Tagout Requirements
The purpose of this memorandum is to bring to your attention the attached memorandum, dated July 10, from Linda Anku, Regional Administrator for Region III. The memorandum discusses an incorrect statement about a lockout/tagout procedure that was published is a magazine called Safety and Health. The magazine is associated with the National Safety Council.

The article (copy enclosed), which relates to welding safety, appeared in the April 1991 issue. The statement was made that there are two people involved in the lockout procedure. The article mentions the employee who puts the lock on and the foreman who takes it off.

This statement does not meet the intent of 29 CFR 1910.147(e)(3) which requires the person who applied the lock to be the one to remove it. the only exception to this is when the employee who applied the lock is not available to remove it. This would be in a case of illness, temporary absence from the job, etc. When this does occur, then only management may remove the lock, but only after certain requirements are met, as outlined 29 CFR 1910.147(e)(3)(i),(ii), and (iii). (copy enclosed)

We contacted the magazine to point out the mistake in the article, and to advise them that a request for correction would be made.

The corrections request can be made to:

Editor - Safety & Health Magazine
National Safety Council
444 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telefax # (312) 527-9381

If you need further information from us, you may call Jeff Finch of my staff at 523-8031.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.



 

Call Toll Free 888.741.8252 | Español | Français | Deutsch | Português ©2024 St. Claire, inc.